| Literature DB >> 30314514 |
Allison Marie Slater1, Fatima Estrada2, Leticia Suarez-Lopez3, Elvia de la Vara-Salazar3, Lourdes Campero3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of user satisfaction with family planning services (FPSs) have been conducted in different countries, and have been employed to identify ways of improving health, reducing costs and implementing reforms. The present work is the first-ever study undertaken in Mexico on the subject. Our objective was to identify how overall user satisfaction with FPSs in Mexico was related to: healthcare logistics, the functional value of services and the quality of interpersonal relations.Entities:
Keywords: Family planning services; Quality health services; User satisfaction
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30314514 PMCID: PMC6186057 DOI: 10.1186/s12978-018-0615-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Description of Variables
| Dependent variable | Operationalization |
|---|---|
| Overall satisfaction with family planning services | Satisfied/Not or sometimes satisfied |
| Independent variables | |
|
| |
| Wait time | < 30 min/30–60 min/ > 60 min |
| Was offered sufficient consultation time | Yes/No |
| Was not attended to during visit | Has occurred/Has not occurred |
| Did not receive contraceptive method because is unavailable | Has occurred/Has not occurred |
|
| |
| Did not receive preferred contraceptive method | Has occurred/Has not occurred |
| Level of satisfaction with current contraceptive method (acquired at clinic) | Not or slightly satisfied/Fairly or very satisfied |
| The motive for my visit was addressed | Yes/No |
|
| |
| Was given the opportunity to ask questions and clarify doubts during consultation | Yes/No |
| Received sufficient information | Has occurred/Has not occurred |
| Was interrupted during consultation | Occurred a lot/Occurred a few times or did not occur |
| Perceived that medical care received was poor | Has occurred/Has not occurred |
| Was treated respectfully by staff | Yes/No |
| Was treated kindly by staff | Yes/No |
| Enjoyed eye contact with staff | Yes/No |
| My opinions were taken into consideration | Has occurred/Has not occurred |
| Felt judged by staff | Has occurred/Has not occurred |
| Control variables | |
| Residential state | Morelos/ Puebla/ Queretaro |
| Socioeconomic status | Low/Medium/High |
| Sex | Male/Female |
| Age | < 20 years/20–35 years/ > 35 years |
| Marital status | Married or in a formal relationship/ Divorced-widowed-single |
| Years of formal education | < 6/6–9/ > 9 years |
| Prior pregnancies | 0/1/≥2 |
| Length of time attending care at the clinic | < 1 year/1–3 years/> 3 years |
Socio-demographic information of surveyed users
| Men | Women | All | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Residential state | ||||||
| Morelos | 27 | 28.12% | 197 | 31.47% | 224 | 31.02% |
| Puebla | 31 | 32.39% | 243 | 38.82% | 274 | 37.95% |
| Queretaro | 38 | 39.58% | 186 | 29.71% | 224 | 31.02% |
| Socioeconomic status (SES)* | ||||||
| Low SES | 12 | 12.50% | 173 | 27.64% | 185 | 25.62% |
| Medium SES | 52 | 54.17% | 328 | 52.40% | 380 | 52.63% |
| High SES | 32 | 33.33% | 125 | 19.97% | 157 | 21.75% |
| Healthcare institution | ||||||
| Ministry of Health | 27 | 28.12% | 245 | 39.14% | 272 | 37.67% |
| | 47 | 48.96% | 198 | 31.63% | 245 | 33.93% |
| | 22 | 22.92% | 183 | 29.23% | 205 | 28.39% |
| Age | ||||||
| < 20 years old | 17 | 17.71% | 68 | 10.86% | 85 | 11.77% |
| 20–24 | 26 | 27.08% | 130 | 20.77% | 156 | 21.61% |
| 25–29 | 19 | 19.79% | 142 | 22.68% | 161 | 22.30% |
| 30–34 | 11 | 11.46% | 123 | 19.65% | 134 | 18.56% |
| ≥ 35 | 23 | 23.96% | 163 | 36.04% | 186 | 25.76% |
| Years of formal education | ||||||
| < 6 years | 6 | 6.25% | 64 | 10.22% | 70 | 9.70% |
| 6–9 years | 68 | 70.83% | 417 | 66.61% | 485 | 67.17% |
| > 9 years | 22 | 22.92% | 144 | 23.00% | 166 | 22.99% |
| Marital status | ||||||
| Married or in union | 65 | 67.71% | 526 | 84.16% | 591 | 81.97% |
| Divorced, widowed or single | 31 | 32.29% | 99 | 15.84% | 130 | 18.03% |
| Reproductive history | # obs | Mean ± SD | # obs | Mean ± SD | # obs | Mean ± SD |
| Number of pregnancies* | 67 | 2.30 ± 1.50 | 589 | 2.41 ± 1.39 | 656 | 2.40 ± 1.40 |
| Age at time of first pregnancy* | 65 | 21.91 ± 4.73 | 590 | 19.68 ± 4.00 | 655 | 19.90 ± 4.13 |
| Number of liveborns | 63 | 2.22 ± 1.53 | 587 | 2.20 ± 1.22 | 650 | 2.20 ± 1.25 |
| Age at time of last pregnancy* | 63 | 27.21 ± 6.58 | 577 | 25.03 ± 5.92 | 640 | 25.24 ± 6.01 |
*p ≤ 0.05
Logistic regression model: crude and adjusted odds ratios for factors affecting overall user satisfaction
| Odds ratio crude (95% CI) | Odds ratio adjusted (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Residential state | ||
| Morelos | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Puebla | 1.43 (0.90–2.26) | 1.19 (0.61–2.32) |
| Queretaro | 0.97 (0.62–1.54) | 0.96 (0.49–1.89) |
| Socioeconomic status | ||
| Low | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Medium | 0.98 (0.61–1.56) | 1.12 (0.55–2.26) |
| High | 0.61 (0.36–1.03) | 0.97 (0.40–2.33) |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Female | 1.00 (0.58–1.74) | 0.89 (0.40–1.97) |
| Age group | ||
| < 20 years | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 20–34 | 0.83 (0.46–1.53) | 0.38 (0.15–1.01) |
| > 35 | 1.21 (0.61–2.40) | 0.50 (0.16–1.60) |
| Marital status | ||
| Married or living in union | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Divorced, widowed or single | 1.47 (0.93–2.31) | 1.09 (0.51–2.32) |
| Years of formal education | ||
| < 6 years | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 6–9 years | 0.78 (0.39–1.59) | 1.50 (0.51–4.32) |
| > 9 years | 0.50 (0.23–1.06) | 0.88 (0.26–2.96) |
| Prior pregnancies | ||
| 0 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 1 | 1.03 (0.53–2.01) | 3.06 (1.01–9.27) |
| ≥ 2 | 1.52 (0.81–2.84) | 4.60 (1.42–14.93) |
| Length of time attending care at the clinic | ||
| < 1 year | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 1–3 | 1.50 (0.88–2.56) | 1.54 (0.71–3.33) |
| > 3 | 1.00 (0.65–1.55) | 1.08 (0.54–2.16) |
| Wait time | ||
| > 60 min | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 30–60 min | 2.29 (1.41–3.72) | 0.85 (0.44–1.64) |
| < 30 min | 4.39 (2.61–7.38) | 2.10 (1.01–4.34) |
| Was offered sufficient consultation time | ||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 8.08 (5.31–12.31) | 2.35 (1.26–4.37) |
| Was not attended to during visit | ||
| Has occurred | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Has not occurred | 5.33 (3.44–8.27) | 1.13 (0.54–2.39) |
| Did not receive contraceptive method because was unavailable | ||
| Has occurred | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Has not occurred | 1.96 (1.26–3.03) | 1.21 (0.63–2.33) |
| Did not receive preferred contraceptive method | ||
| Has occurred | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Has not occurred | 5.87 (2.87–11.97) | 1.78 (0.62–5.11) |
| Level of satisfaction with current contraceptive method (acquired at clinic) | ||
| Not or slightly satisfied | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Fairly or very satisfied | 3.54 (2.02–6.16) | 1.79 (1.03–3.11) |
| The motive for the visit was addressed | ||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 11.38 (6.78–19.07) | 2.71 (1.29–5.71) |
| Was given the opportunity to ask questions and clarify doubts during consultation | ||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 10.54 (6.69–16.61) | 2.31 (1.21–4.43) |
| Received sufficient information | ||
| Has occurred. | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Has not occurred. | 4.62 (3.12–6.84) | 3.38 (1.88–6.06) |
| Was interrupted during consultation | ||
| Occurred a lot | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Occurred a few times or did not occur | 4.79 (3.23–7.12) | 1.97 (1.10–3.51) |
| Perceived that medical care received was poor | ||
| Has occurred | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Has not occurred | 7.75 (5.02–11.95) | 1.16 (0.51–2.66) |
| Was treated respectfully by staff | ||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 11.82 (7.01–19.91) | 2.18 (0.73–6.50) |
| Was treated kindly by staff | ||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 10.94 (6.86–17.46) | 1.65 (0.60–4.56) |
| Enjoyed eye contact during conversations with staff | ||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 5.27 (3.51–7.91) | 1.40 (0.75–2.62) |
| The users´ opinions were taken into consideration | ||
| Has occurred | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Has not occurred | 8.01 (4.96–12.91) | 2.58 (1.14–5.85) |
| Felt judged by staff | ||
| Has occurred | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Has not occurred | 5.95 (3.43–10.34) | 0.98 (0.38–2.53) |